Bhruic:from my blood: GM is a greedy company which knowingly does more harm than good. Control should be ripped from its leaders and handed to do-gooders for the benefit of mankind and the earth.

I realize this is likely trolling, but you realize the "GM" in question here stands for "genetically modified", rather than the car company, right?

Well, in both cases the overuse of acronyms (or initialisms, or whatever the grammar nazis call them) is annoying. What the fark is wrong with saying "General Motors" and "genetically-modified"? Are we in that big a hurry we need to preserve every damn syllable?

AliceBToklasLives:Bhruic: from my blood: GM is a greedy company which knowingly does more harm than good. Control should be ripped from its leaders and handed to do-gooders for the benefit of mankind and the earth.

I realize this is likely trolling, but you realize the "GM" in question here stands for "genetically modified", rather than the car company, right?

Well, in both cases the overuse of acronyms (or initialisms, or whatever the grammar nazis call them) is annoying. What the fark is wrong with saying "General Motors" and "genetically-modified"? Are we in that big a hurry we need to preserve every damn syllable?

AliceBToklasLives:Bhruic: from my blood: GM is a greedy company which knowingly does more harm than good. Control should be ripped from its leaders and handed to do-gooders for the benefit of mankind and the earth.

I realize this is likely trolling, but you realize the "GM" in question here stands for "genetically modified", rather than the car company, right?

Well, in both cases the overuse of acronyms (or initialisms, or whatever the grammar nazis call them) is annoying. What the fark is wrong with saying "General Motors" and "genetically-modified"? Are we in that big a hurry we need to preserve every damn syllable?

/yellsatcloud.jpg

Although I agree with you, I have to ask are you eating an onion, or are you just holding it?

Marine1:This just in: people who believe in pseudoscience will often ignore calls to have their findings placed through the scrutiny of peer reviews.

That's what calls against GMO food are: pseudoscience.

Calls for GMO are lies brought on by the greedy 1% who manipulate life without really knowing the long term effects on humans and on the environment.

Also, the seed produced by GM crops should not not be property of the GM company. Those backing this sick patent practice should be jailed for life for obvious morality corruption.

Supporting this legal BS will result in this: When your arm is regrown by GM, they will claim a percentage of your wages belongs to them since you used their arm. This is not the world we should be moving toward.

from my blood:Marine1: This just in: people who believe in pseudoscience will often ignore calls to have their findings placed through the scrutiny of peer reviews.

That's what calls against GMO food are: pseudoscience.

Calls for GMO are lies brought on by the greedy 1% who manipulate life without really knowing the long term effects on humans and on the environment.

Also, the seed produced by GM crops should not not be property of the GM company. Those backing this sick patent practice should be jailed for life for obvious morality corruption.

Supporting this legal BS will result in this: When your arm is regrown by GM, they will claim a percentage of your wages belongs to them since you used their arm. This is not the world we should be moving toward.

Big surprise. Seralini got called on his methods before, he'd hate to get smacked down again.

The issue of whether GM seeds should belong to the company is a legal issue. Not a moral one. You'll have all sorts of people, like me, who work on GM plants, or in the field and hate the patent system because of what it does. But don't hate the technology. Maybe if there was more scientific understanding, and you (the public) decided that you'd actually like to fund these things yourself, then you wouldn't have to put up with the price of having private industry fund it. Food for thought. Incidentally, cultivars have been IP protected since before the Chakrabarty case brought it up.

Prometheus, Myriad, Chakrabarty. Three words that will spike my blood pressure and make me want to punch people in the face.

karl2025:If I were him I wouldn't worry about releasing my data. Conspiracy nuts (And that's basically who these people are) don't care about facts or data that don't support what they already think.

That's not how science works. If someone claims to be doing science and they refuse to release their data for scrutiny by other scientists you should instinctively be suspicious. Science requires the sharing of data so other scientists can attempt to reproduce your work. That's how science separates out the truth from error - or shiat people make up and want to push for selfish reasons.

from my blood:Bhruic: from my blood: GM is a greedy company which knowingly does more harm than good. Control should be ripped from its leaders and handed to do-gooders for the benefit of mankind and the earth.

I realize this is likely trolling, but you realize the "GM" in question here stands for "genetically modified", rather than the car company, right?

I thought this was about crappy cars with low mileage and high emissions.

/Applies to Monsanto also.

Wait, who do you think owns GM?

Their the largest shareholders are their union workers, the US government, and the Canadian government.

RTFA and see for yourself. The researcher agreed to release his data when the agency making the demand (European Food Safety Agency) releases the data it used in 2003 to rule that GM maize is safe.

See, that's not how this works. You do not get to make assertions, and then when people ask you for your data (say....so they can replicate it like good scientists dealing with hot-topic issues tend to do) hold it hostage until someone else does what you want them to do. The fact that he's going on a smear campaign while -simultaneously- refusing to cough up the data sets off all sorts of alarm bells.

You know what it feels like to me? It feels like there's someone who has incontrovertible proof that Obama was born in Kenya, is going on Ellen and will only release the proof when he's done touring.

RTFA and see for yourself. The researcher agreed to release his data when the agency making the demand (European Food Safety Agency) releases the data it used in 2003 to rule that GM maize is safe.

See, that's not how this works. You do not get to make assertions, and then when people ask you for your data (say....so they can replicate it like good scientists dealing with hot-topic issues tend to do) hold it hostage until someone else does what you want them to do. The fact that he's going on a smear campaign while -simultaneously- refusing to cough up the data sets off all sorts of alarm bells.

You know what it feels like to me? It feels like there's someone who has incontrovertible proof that Obama was born in Kenya, is going on Ellen and will only release the proof when he's done touring.

P.S. The person IS lying about the birther proof. Just in case someone thinks I believe that crap.

Esn:Kinek: The issue of whether GM seeds should belong to the company is a legal issue. Not a moral one.

What exactly do you think are laws for if it's not to impose morality?

This is the case of an is-ought problem. It currently is the case that companies can patent genes. It ought not to be (at least not how it's currently structured. Cultivar protection should be enough). Getting from the is to the ought is problematic since it requires the injection of personal morality. I personally don't think that it should be the case, but that has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand (safety).

Bt stands for the naturally occurring bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt lives in the soil and is found all over the world. Some types of Bt produce a protein crystal that is toxic to insects. These protein crystals have been used in organic farming for over 50 years to control insects. Bt transgenic crops have been shown to reduce the amount of insecticides in runoffs.